China, U.S. intransigence over climate policy hijacks Bali talks

China, U.S. intransigence over climate policy hijacks Bali talks

A face off between the world’s largest greenhouse-gas spewers has taken center stage at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, and China appears to be winning its public-relations battle with the U.S.

Although both countries have dug in their heels, China, which many believe has already surpassed the U.S. as the world's top emitter of heat-trapping gases, is now seen as playing a constructive role on global warming after years of dodging the issue.

In that scenario, the U.S. is losing friends fast.

Instead of mandatory cuts, the Bush administration wants individual countries to set their own goals. It also favors private-sector initiatives to develop energy-saving technology and alternative sources such as ethanol, and says industry should devise ways to burn coal and other fossil fuels more cleanly.

The U.S. rejected Kyoto, which commits three dozen industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gases an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels between next year and 2012, largely because developing countries such as China, India and Brazil were not required to cut emissions.

Though it also rejects binding cuts, China has expressed support for a post-Kyoto agreement and used the Bali conference to show it is doing something to address climate change, like boosting renewable energy use to 10 percent by 2010 and improving efficiency by 20 percent. It also has launched a massive tree planting program and rolled out a national climate change policy.

There’s no question any climate-change accord is meaningless without the participation of China, India and other developing countries. But it’s also meaningless without the U.S., which would be in a far better position to persuade other emitters to take on greater commitments if it had shouldered its own responsibilities.

Previous Comments

Am I reading this correctly? The link to “Canada has agreed to accept mandatory targets” went to an article containing this clip: “It is incumbent upon us to act immediately,” Rob Renner, Environment Minister from Canada’s western province of Alberta, told reporters in Bali. “We believe very strongly we have an obligation to begin these negotiations.”

I have not found anything elsewhere about Canada changing its position, so maybe the reporter at the link got it wrong? The Bali blog at the David Suzuki Foundation talks about Baird not being clear in his speech. He’s a career politician and practiced at talking bafflegab I’m sure.

This Globe and Mail article suggests Baird & Co. do not have thier act together.

…“I don’t think a 50-per-cent reduction globally by 2050 is enough,” Mr. Baird told reporters. “We’re prepared to go to 60 or 70 per cent. If we get all the big emitters on board, I think we can do more by 2050. … But we can only do it if we get everyone else on board.”

A senior Canadian official, however, seemed to undercut Mr. Baird’s promises by sending reporters a copy of an Australian newspaper article in which business groups warned of “catastrophic economic effects” if the 25- to 40-per-cent target is adopted…

What’s been left off the most recent announcement is the qualifier(s) to both Harper’s Commonwealth statements and Baird’s Bali chit-chatting. It is an old trick - we’ll agree to the mandatory conditions as long as there is unanimous consent and they apply to all equally.

The reporter at the link about Canada seems to think Canada is standing up to the US and others, but I think she has it wrong. In the Globe & Mail article, Baird is whining about Canada needing a special condition because we do more than 80% of our trade with one partner; in other words, trying to justify the Conservatives’ cowardly, sycophantic behaviour toward the US.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.